Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:35 pm**

I know it isn't on the PS3, which would be useful to me. Don't know if I want to bother hitting you up for a pword, or not.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:26 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:At no point did I say I didn't participate. I am only arguing that it is stealing and I only did it because I was too cheap to pay for the content legitimately. I did the same with BSG. I watched those CDs you gave me instead of buying the DVDs because I was too cheap to buy them.

Same here. I've pirated stuff in the past, but haven't in some years. Was never big into pirating music. Have lots of pirated porn (not to be confused with pirate porn). Enough that I'll either be too old to care or too blind before I get bored with the selection.

I used to pirate some of the old PC games to try them out for a weekend day before investing in them. But that was because I was cheap and didn't want to spend money on a game I would only play for 15-20 hrs.

That was why I had to side with Cake on this. I had reasons for pirating, but it was always because I didn't want to spend the money.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:33 pm**

I have about 7k songs in my mp3 library. I have about 700 CDs on my shelves where they all came from. Guestimate. Haven't counted in a while.

HOWEVER. Several of the albums I own are because I tried them out on mp3, first. If I liked it, I bought the album and re-ripped it at a higher quality mp3 and made sure the tags were correct. If I didn't like it, I deleted it so it wouldn't show up again on random play on the juke box. This happens less and less since we now have youtube and I can sample music that way. That wasn't always the case.

I have pirated music, but not because I was too cheap to buy it. It's because I got fooled too many times by 1 decent song on an otherwise shitty album, and some things I wanted to sample, first.

This one example alone should defeat the "the only reason" argument. It isn't the only reason. Withdraw it and rephrase, or admit to being wrong.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:46 pm**

The song was there for you to buy. You decided not to because you didn't want to spend the money. You can justify it with "I wanted to try it before I bought it" or "I wanted to see if it was worth it". But it comes down to the fact that you didn't want to spend the money. You might eventually. But, at that moment, it was because you didn't want to spend the money. You are arguing that, having the song before you bought it, isn't stealing. It is. Deleting it after stealing it, or paying for it later does not erase the original crime. Nor does it change the lowest, core reason for doing it. You didn't want to spend the money on it. That would be like me saying "I have Air Supply songs on my MP3 player. But, I would have NEVER bought them, so they aren't losing any money because they were never going to get my money anyway. So, it's ok that I have them and it's not stealing because I can't take from them what they were never going to get from me in the first place."

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:48 pm**

HBOGo is available on everything. Well, except the PS3 I guess. Android. IOS. Roku. PC. The new FireTV thing does it, doesn't it? Or was that a complaint? Does the Google stick thing? I have HBOGo all over the place.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:51 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:The song was there for you to buy. You decided not to because you didn't want to spend the money. You can justify it with "I wanted to try it before I bought it" or "I wanted to see if it was worth it". But it comes down to the fact that you didn't want to spend the money. You might eventually. But, at that moment, it was because you didn't want to spend the money. You are arguing that, having the song before you bought it, isn't stealing. It is. Deleting it after stealing it, or paying for it later does not erase the original crime. Nor does it change the lowest, core reason for doing it. You didn't want to spend the money on it. That would be like me saying "I have Air Supply songs on my MP3 player. But, I would have NEVER bought them, so they aren't losing any money because they were never going to get my money anyway. So, it's ok that I have them and it's not stealing because I can't take from them what they were never going to get from me in the first place."

They attempt to deceive me with their marketing practices, therefore I am justified in verifying their claims.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:00 pm**

Nor does it change the lowest, core reason for doing it.

Is money really the most important thing in the word to you, so that you must insist that it is the lowest core motivation in all cases?

Wow. How very sad.

Edited By TPRJones on 1397685635

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:30 pm**

I'm rolling my eyes.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:02 pm**

GORDON wrote:I have pirated music, but not because I was too cheap to buy it. It's because I got fooled too many times by 1 decent song on an otherwise shitty album, and some things I wanted to sample, first.

But it's still what Cake said. However justified you felt at the time, you initially didn't spend the money because you didn't want to waste (spend) your money if you didn't like the album. Like I said elsewhere in this thread... one man's frugal is another man's cheapskate.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:14 pm**

They drew first blood... I bought the shitty albums they advertised as awesome. They set the tone with an adversarial relationship. I responded to their dishonest tactics.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:30 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote:I'm rolling my eyes.

As well you should, clearly I'm poking at you for a reaction. :p

But seriously, I am hardly frugal and money is something I care very little about. I assure you that the money involved is not a motivating factor compared to dealing with inconvenience and DRM bullshit and other similar concepts. I value my time, comfort, and convenience far more than I value money.

You can call me lazy and I will wholeheartedly agree. You can call me criminal and I'd point out that it's a civil matter rather than a criminal one but wouldn't make too much fuss. But I'm certainly not doing any of this because I'm cheap.

Edited By TPRJones on 1397691065

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:46 pm**

I've downloaded music illegally, and bought the CD and just thrown it away, or stuffed it in a closet cuz I was too lazy to rip it.

I've bought physical books, that I then download illegally and put on my eReader.

I've definitely stolen a few games to try them out first, then bought them later.

I do believe if I buy something on one platform, I ahve the right to get it on all platforms. Even though I've sometimes bought it on every damned one.

I dunno... I see both sides. I want it to be convenient for me though, and that is the most important part. I think content providers deserve money for their product, but if they make it too inconvenient, screw em.

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:37 pm**

I've bought physical books, that I then download illegally and put on my eReader.

Oh, right, books. I have my preferred e-reading software that I use on my tablet, and I refuse to use other software that doesn't have the same capabilities (the biggest being white text on a black screen with adjustable brightness with a swipe; that makes a huge difference when reading on a tablet). But it doesn't do bullshit proprietary DRM, so I've bought a bunch of e-books that I never intend to download to pay for the DRM-free versions I do download.

Whenever I can I just buy the DRM-free version, of course, but so few publishers make that available.

Edited By TPRJones on 1397698739

Posted: **Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:47 pm**

Sure as shit, it's over taxed and goes down. Who complains? All the freeloaders!!

No, the freeloaders went and grabbed it from the torrent sites. The legit users bitched.

Cable companies really did get bulk prices/savings that they passed on to their customers.

Yet, in spite of distribution getting easier over the years, my cable bill goes up and the number of cable companies I have to choose from goes down. "We'll save you money now and fuck you up the ass later."

They said that cable companies bare the cost of much of their marketing.

Might've been true before the 'net, but again, this is the 21st goddamned century.

Deleting it after stealing it, or paying for it later does not erase the original crime.

Holy fuck. Really? How about if I go watch a cover band perform a song, is that stealing? What if I hear someone whistling the chorus hook on the street somewhere? Does that count? In addition, I've gone to concerts for artists and spent money on their merch after I got their music illegally. If things were played your way, they'd be getting less of my cash.

However justified you felt at the time, you initially didn't spend the money because you didn't want to waste (spend) your money if you didn't like the album.

Yeah, fuck forbid I not spend cash on things I don't place value on. Buying an album isn't like buying a fucking painting; I cannot perceive it in full all at once. If you went to a restaurant and they served you half-cooked food, you'd send it back or ask for a refund. Why is it different for music? Why does my wallet have to take a half-finished album up the ass? Why should buying a record be more like gambling than a purchase? If you think you should keep the shitty album you paid for, then I submit you have to keep your shitty food. Oh, but it isn't pleasing to your senses? Too fucking bad, it's still technically edible in the same way the tunes are listenable.

I fucking remember the days before Napster when you had to listen to new singles on the fucking radio and buy the album on the strength of those one or two songs. Additionally, if we're talking music specifically, the RIAA has plainly indicated they're going to react in a over-the-top fashion that would give Dr. Evil pause, so double motherfuck them and may their foulness rot in hell.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:39 am**

TheCatt wrote:I dunno... I see both sides. I want it to be convenient for me though, and that is the most important part. I think content providers deserve money for their product, but if they make it too inconvenient, screw em.

I'm with you. I see both sides, however if you would do things differently if you had Bill Gates money than you do now in justifying why you don't pay for it, then Cake's right and you're too cheap/frugal/poor to pay for it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:42 am**

Vince wrote:
TheCatt wrote:I dunno... I see both sides. I want it to be convenient for me though, and that is the most important part. I think content providers deserve money for their product, but if they make it too inconvenient, screw em.
I'm with you. I see both sides, however if you would do things differently if you had Bill Gates money than you do now in justifying why you don't pay for it, then Cake's right and you're too cheap/frugal/poor to pay for it.

If I had Bill Gates money, then my issue would be how to stream anything to remote tropical islands. Which would be a whole new problem.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:48 am**

I see both sides, however if you would do things differently if you had Bill Gates money than you do now in justifying why you don't pay for it, then Cake's right and you're too cheap/frugal/poor to pay for it.

I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks.

Posted: **Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:11 am**

...however if you would do things differently if you had Bill Gates money than you do now in justifying why you don't pay for it...

I really and honestly wouldn't.

Because it is not and has not - for me - been about money. Conveninece, time, these are worth much more.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:37 am**

GORDON wrote:It's great they are trying to reinvent the wheel yet again and not have to share with Netflix and Amazon Video streaming....

They must have read this thread and saw I was mocking them.

They're getting in bed with Amazon Prime. (But not Game of Thrones because still fuck you)

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:24 am**

(But not Game of Thrones because still fuck you)

Really? They can go get fucked by a water buffalo.

Welcome to Thunderdome

HBO still stuck in 20th century